JUDGMENT

The petitioner herein is the owner of the building bearing door No.9/142/B of Muvattupuzha Municipality. It was let out to the additional fourth respondent. He conducted a chitty business there. On an allegation that the chitty amounts were not paid to the subscribers, crime was registered against the fourth respondent and in the course of the proceedings, the above room was seized. This is under challenge in this Writ Petition (C ), at the instance of the landlord.

2. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, he is the owner of the building and that the whereabouts of the tenant, who is the fourth respondent is not known. According to him, the above seizure of the immovable property purportedly invoking Section 102 of the Cr.P.C is illegal. The learned counsel for the petitioner correctly relied on the decision of the three Judges bench of the the Supreme Court in Nevada Properties Pvt Ltd., Through its Directors Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another 2019 (4) KHC 782 (SC). In that decision, it was held that the power of a police officer under Section 102 of the Cr.P.C, does not include power to attach, seize and seal an immovable property. Evidently,